4.7 Article

Monitoring a national cancer prevention program: Successful changes in cervical cancer screening in the Netherlands

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 120, 期 4, 页码 806-812

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.22167

关键词

mass screening; cervical cancer; the Netherlands; coverage; follow-up

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The success of screening, an important cancer prevention tool, depends on the quality and efficiency of protocols and guidelines for screening and follow-up. However, even centrally organized screening programs such as the Dutch cervical screening program occasionally show problems in performance. To improve this program, the screening scheme, follow-up, administration and financing protocols and guidelines were thoroughly changed in 1996. This study evaluates the consequences for the performance of the national program. Five-year coverage rate, the proportion of screened women sent to follow-up, follow-up compliance and duration, and the yearly number of Pap smears before and after the changes in 1996 were compared. Five-year coverage increased substantially in the added target age groups (30-34, and 5460 years); in the old target age group (35-53 years) it remained around 80%. The percentage of screened women sent to follow-up decreased from almost 19-3% per screening round, due to a more restrictive use of the Pap 2 classification, and an evidence-based cessation of follow-up of negative smears without endocervical cells. Follow-up compliance has improved, and the average time until a woman is either referred or rejoins the regular screening schedule, has become shorter. The total number of smears, a strong determinant of screening costs, has decreased by 20% primarily due to the changed follow-up recommendations. In conclusion, the 1996 changes in protocols and guidelines, and their implementation have increased coverage and efficiency, and decreased the screening-induced negative side effects. (c) 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据